Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    A Monk & Co LTD V Devon CC: Where Reported Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    lostnfnd
    Abstract: In 1967 the appellant CC engaged the respondent building contractors for the construction of that part of the M5 motorway known as the Cullompton By-pass. The respondents sub-contracted the work of site clearance and earth removal to a firm known as Richards and Wallington. Measurement of this work was agreed but its valuation was disputed both between the respondents and Richards and Wallington under the sub-contract, and between the parties to the instant case under the main contract

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    A Monk & Co LTD V Devon CC: Where Reported Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    lostnfnd
    98 views2 pages
    Abstract: In 1967 the appellant CC engaged the respondent building contractors for the construction of that part of the M5 motorway known as the Cullompton By-pass. The respondents sub-contracted the work of site clearance and earth removal to a firm known as Richards and Wallington. Measurement of this work was agreed but its valuation was disputed both between the respondents and Richards and Wallington under the sub-contract, and between the parties to the instant case under the main contract

    Original Title

    A Monk & Co Ltd v Devon CC [1978] 10 BLR 9

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Abstract: In 1967 the appellant CC engaged the respondent building contractors for the construction of that part of the M5 motorway known as the Cullompton By-pass. The respondents sub-contracted the work of site clearance and earth removal to a firm known as Richards and Wallington. Measurement of this work was agreed but its valuation was disputed both between the respondents and Richards and Wallington under the sub-contract, and between the parties to the instant case under the main contract

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    98 views2 pages

    A Monk & Co LTD V Devon CC: Where Reported Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    lostnfnd
    Abstract: In 1967 the appellant CC engaged the respondent building contractors for the construction of that part of the M5 motorway known as the Cullompton By-pass. The respondents sub-contracted the work of site clearance and earth removal to a firm known as Richards and Wallington. Measurement of this work was agreed but its valuation was disputed both between the respondents and Richards and Wallington under the sub-contract, and between the parties to the instant case under the main contract

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Page1

    A Monk & Co Ltd v Devon CC


    Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    01 January 1979

    Case Analysis

    Where Reported 10 B.L.R. 9

    Case Digest Subject: Arbitration


    Keywords: Arbitration; Case stated; Parties; Procedure
    Summary: Building; tripartite arbitration; practice
    Abstract: In 1967 the appellant CC engaged the respondent
    building contractors for the construction of that part of the M5
    motorway known as the Cullompton By-pass. The respondents
    sub-contracted the work of site clearance and earth removal to a
    firm known as Richards and Wallington. Measurement of this work
    was agreed but its valuation was disputed both between the
    respondents and Richards and Wallington under the sub-contract,
    and between the parties to the instant case under the main contract.
    Both disputes were referred to a tripartite arbitration. Upon the
    arbitrators' direction there were pleadings similar to those in a High
    Court action where there are third party proceedings, the
    respondents pleading a defence to the claim of Richards and
    Wallington and also claiming against the appellants as "third
    parties." Just before the arbitration was to commence the
    respondents and Richards and Wallington agreed to settlement
    upon terms, inter alia, that the latter were to undertake the conduct
    and have control of the respondents proceedings against the
    appellants. The appellants contended that the respondents were
    tied to the denials that they had already made of any liability to
    Richards and Wallington and could not drop them in order to enable
    the latter to prove their own claim in the respondents' name in the
    guise of it being the respondents' claim against the appellants under
    the main contract. The arbitrator stated a special case on the
    question of law "whether or not in the circumstances now pertaining
    (the respondents) are (a) bound by the matters pleaded by them in
    defence to Richard and Wallington's claim and/or (b) precluded from
    leading evidence or making submissions in the arbitration against
    (the appellants) which seek to establish that these matters of
    defence are wrong in fact or in law".
    Held, that the respondents were not bound as the appellants
    contended. Amendments ought to be allowed to give effect to the
    realities of the situation and to permit the respective rights of the
    parties to be determined (Stott v West Yorkshire Car Co [1971] 2
    Q.B. 651 applied).

    Significant Cases Cited Stott v West Yorkshire Car Co


    [1971] 2 Q.B. 651; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 282; [1971] 3 All E.R. 534;
    (1971) 115 S.J. 568; CA (Civ Div)

    All Cases Cited Stott v West Yorkshire Car Co


    [1971] 2 Q.B. 651; [1971] 3 W.L.R. 282; [1971] 3 All E.R. 534;
    Page2

    (1971) 115 S.J. 568; CA (Civ Div)

    Books Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts 12th Ed.


    Chapter: Chapter 9 - Assignments, Sub-contracts and Trade
    Contracts
    Documents: Sub-section (2) - Employer and Sub-Contractor

    © 2013 Sweet & Maxwell

    You might also like